# Detailed California-Modified GREET

Pathway for Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG)

from North American and Remote Natural Gas Sources

Stationary Source Division

Release Date: July 20, 2009

Version 1.0

### The Staff of the Air Resources Board developed this preliminary draft

version as part of the Low Carbon Fuel Standard reg ulatory process

The ARB acknowledges contributions from Life Cycle Associates (under contract with the California Energy Commission) dur ing the development of this document

When reviewing this document, please submit comment s directly to:

Anil Prabhu: aprabhu@arb.ca.gov Chan Pham: cpham@arb.ca.gov Alan Glabe: aglabe@arb.ca.gov Gregory McMahan: gmcmahan@arb.ca.gov Joe Fischer: jofische@arb.ca.gov

These comments will be compiled, reviewed, and post ed to the LCFS

website in a timely manner.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

i 

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

................................................... ................................................... ..... i List of Figures

................................................... ................................................... ......... ii List of Tables

................................................... ................................................... ........... ii Summary

................................................... ................................................... .................. 1 CA-GREET Model Pathway for LNG from North American Natural Gas and Remote Natural Gas........................................

................................................... ................... 2

APPENDIX A1 (SCENARIO 1)

................................................... .................................... 6 LNG FROM NORTH AMERICAN NG .........................

................................................... . 6 SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS RECOVERY

................................................... ................. 7 1.1 Energy Use for Natural Gas Recovery ............

................................................... 7 1.2 GHG Emissions from NA Natural Gas Recovery .... .......................................... 7 SECTION 2. NATURAL GAS PROCESSING

................................................... ............. 9 2.1 Energy use for Natural Gas Processing..........

................................................... 9 2.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Processing...... ............................................. 9 SECTION 3. NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION AND DISTRIBUT ION .................. 10 3.1 Energy Use for NG Transport to LNG Plants in Ca lifornia ............................... 10 3.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Transport to LNG Plants in California........ 10 SECTION 4. NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TO LNG ............................................. 11 4.1 LNG Liquefaction Energy Use....................

................................................... ... 11 4.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Liquefaction to LNG in California............... 12 SECTION 5. LNG TRANSPORT, DISTRIBUTION, AND STORAGE ........................... 13 5.1 LNG Truck Transport Summary ....................

................................................... 13 5.2 LNG Truck Transport Energy Consumption ......... ............................................ 13 5.3 GHG Emissions from Truck Transport of LNG...... ........................................... 14 5.4 GHG Emissions from Storage of LNG.............. ................................................ 16 SECTION 6. GHG EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES

................................................... ... 17 6.1 LNG Composition................................

................................................... .......... 17 6.2 GHG Emissions from Vehicles....................

................................................... .. 17

APPENDIX A2 (SCENARIO 2)

................................................... .................................. 18 LNG FROM REMOTE SOURCES, SHIPPED TO BAJA, RE-GASIF IED, PIPELINED TO CA, LIQUEFIED IN CA................... .............................................. 18 SECTION 1. REMOTE NATURAL GAS RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND TRANSPORT TO LNG PLANT

................................................... ................................. 21 1.1 Remote NG Recovery and Processing .............. .............................................. 21 SECTION 2. REMOTE NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TO LNG ............................. 22 2.1 Liquefaction Energy Use ........................

................................................... ....... 22 2.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Liquefaction to LNG................................... 23 SECTION 3. LNG TRANSPORT TO CALIFORNIA, DISTRIBUTIO N, REGASIFICATION, TRANSPORT, AND STORAGE WITHIN CALIFOR NIA ................... 24 3.1 LNG Transport via Ocean Tanker .................

................................................... 24PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

ii 3.2 Re-gasification ................................

................................................... .............. 26 3.3 Pipeline Transport to CA under Scenario 2...... ................................................ 28 3.4 Liquefaction in California.....................

................................................... .......... 29 3.5 LNG Transport and Storage in California ........ ................................................. 29 SECTION 4. GHG EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES

................................................... ... 30 4.1 Tank To Wheel (TTW) GHG Emissions .............. ............................................. 30

APPENDIX A3 (SCENARIO 3)

................................................... .................................. 31 LNG FROM REMOTE SOURCES, SHIPPED TO BAJA, TRUCKED T O CA ........ 31 SECTION 1. REMOTE NATURAL GAS RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND TRANSPORT TO LNG PLANT

................................................... ................................. 35 1.1 Remote NG Recovery and Processing .............. .............................................. 35 SECTION 2. REMOTE NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TO LNG ............................. 36 2.1 Liquefaction Energy Use ........................

................................................... ....... 36 2.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Liquefaction to LNG................................... 36 SECTION 3. LNG TRANSPORT TO BAJA, THEN TRUCKED AND STORAGE WITHIN CALIFORNIA

................................................... ............................................... 37 3.1 LNG Transport via Ocean Tanker .................

................................................... 37 3.2 LNG Transport and Storage to California from Ba ja, Mexico to California ....... 37 SECTION 4. GHG EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES

................................................... ... 38 4.1 Tank To Wheel (TTW) GHG Emissions .............. ............................................. 38

APPENDIX B

................................................... ................................................... .......... 39 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) FROM NORTH AMERICAN AN D REMOTE NATURAL GAS SOURCES PATHWAY INPUT VALUES........... ........................... 39



## LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Discrete Components of the Three Natural Gas to LNG Pathways Detailed in this Document ......................................

................................................... ........................ 3



## LIST OF TABLES

Table A. Summary of GHG Emissions for the Three Sce narios Detailed Here............... 5 Table 1.01. Total Energy Consumption for NA NG Reco very ......................................... 7 Table 1.02. Total GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Re covery....................................... 8 Table 2.01. Total Energy Consumption for NG Process ing............................................. 9 Table 2.02. Total GHG Emissions from NG Processing. ................................................. 9 Table 3.01. Energy Use for NG Transport to LNG Plan ts in CA.................................... 10 Table 3.02. Total GHG Emissions Associated with NG Transport to California LNG Plants .............................................

................................................... ............................ 10 Table 4.01. Energy Efficiency for Natural Gas Lique faction .......................................... 11 Table 4.02. Direct Energy Use by Process Fuel for L iquefaction in California .............. 12 Table 4.03. Total Energy Use by Process Fuel for Li quefaction in California................ 12PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

iii Table 4.04. Total Emissions (Direct + Upstream) Emi ssions for Liquefaction ............... 12 Table 5.01. Direct, Upstream and Total Energy Use f or Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Delivering LNG from LNG Plants to Refueling Station s in California............................. 14 Table 5.02. Upstream and Direct Emissions for Heavy -Duty Diesel Truck Transport of LNG from LNG Plants to Refueling Stations in Califo rnia.............................................. 1 4 Table 5.03. Total GHG Emissions for LNG Transport i n CA ......................................... 16 Table 5.04. LNG Storage Emissions ..................

................................................... ........ 16 Table 6.01. LNG Tailpipe Emissions. ................

................................................... ......... 17

Table A2.1. Summary of GHG Emissions for Scenario 2 .............................................. 20 Table A2.2. Basis Assumptions for Remote Sourced LN G for Scenario 2 .................... 20 Table 2.01. Total Energy Inputs for Overseas LNG Li quefaction Systems.................... 22 Table 2.02. Total Emissions (Direct + Upstream) Emi ssions for Remote Liquefaction.. 23 Table 3.01. Transport Distance for LNG Shipment via Ocean Tanker from Remote Source to Baja.....................................

................................................... ....................... 25 Table 3.02. Direct, Upstream and Total Energy Use f or Transport via Ocean Tanker to Baja...............................................

................................................... ............................. 25 Table 3.03. Total Emissions (Direct + Upstream) for Ocean Tanker Transport of LNG from Remote Source to Baja.........................

................................................... ............. 26 Table 3.04. Total GHG Emissions for Ocean Tanker Tr ansport of LNG from Remote Source to Baja.....................................

................................................... ....................... 26 Table 3.05. Total Energy (Direct + Upstream) for LN G Re-gasification......................... 27 Table 3.06. Emission Factors for Large (> 100 mmBtu /hr) NG Boiler ........................... 27 Table 3.07. Total GHG Emissions from LNG Re-gasific ation........................................ 28 Table 3.08. Total Energy Use for Transport of Re-ga sified NG from Baja, Mexico ....... 29 Table 3.09. Total GHG Emissions for Pipeline Transm ission from Baja, Mexico .......... 29

Table A3.1. Summary of GHG Emissions for Scenario 3 .............................................. 33 Table A3.2. Basis Assumptions for Remote Sourced LN G ........................................... 34PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

1 

# SUMMARYPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

2 CA-GREET Model Pathway for LNG from North American Natural Gas and Remote Natural Gas

Well-To-Tank (WTT) Life Cycle Analysis of a fuel pa thway includes all steps from feedstock recovery to final finished fuel. Tank-To -Wheel (TTW) analysis includes actual combustion of fuel in a motor vehicle for motive po wer. Together, WTT and TTW analysis are combined to provide a total Well-To-Wh eel (WTW) analysis.

A Life Cycle Analysis Model called the Gr eenhouse gases, R egulated E missions, and E nergy use in T ransportation (GREET) 1 developed by Argonne National Laboratory forms the core basis of the methodology used in thi s document. This model was modified by staff with assistance from Life Cycle A ssociates to create a CA-GREET model. This modified model incorporated California specific factors for emission factors, fuel properties, etc. into the original Argonne mod el. This pathway document details the energy use and associated Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emis sions for the entire Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from Natural Gas (NG) pathway. T he document includes LNG derived from: natural gas produced in North America and natural gas from remote NG sources (overseas from South East Asia for this doc ument). Figure 1 details the steps for the three scenarios modeled in this document fo r LNG availability and use in California. Appendix A1: The left most scenario (Scenario 1) is for NG recovered and processed in North America, transported via pipeline to Californ ia, liquefied in California, transported to LNG filling stations in California and used as L NG in a heavy-duty vehicle in California. Complete details for this scenario is provided in Appendix A1. Appendix A2: The scenario in the middle of Figure 1 (Scenario 2) is for NG recovered, processed, and liquefied from remote sources (assum ed from South East Asia), transported via tanker to Baja, re-gasified to NG a nd pipelined to California where it is liquefied to LNG, transported to LNG filling statio ns and used as LNG in a heavy-duty vehicle in California. Complete details for this s cenario is provided in Appendix A2. Appendix A3: The rightmost scenario in Figure 1 (Sc enario 3) is for NG recovered, processed, and liquefied from remote sources, trans ported via tanker to Baja, trucked from Baja to California as LNG and used as LNG in a heavy-duty vehicle in California. Complete details for this scenario is provided in A ppendix A3.

The summary section details the GHG emissions for t he three scenarios with complete details for the scenarios provided in Appendices A1 , A2, and A3. Details of all the input values are provided in Appendix B.

Note: Staff is working on surveys for NG production , transmission and distribution in California. Based on the results, staff may update the analysis presented in this document.

1 GREET Model: Argonne National Laboratory: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulati on/GREET/index.htmlPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

3 APPENDIX A1 APPENDIX A2 APPENDIX A3

Figure 1. Discrete Components of the Three Natural Gas to LNG Pathways Detailed in this Document

Several general descriptions and clarification of t erminology used throughout this document are:

• CA-GREET employs a recursive methodology to calcula te energy consumption and emissions. To calculate WTT energy and emissions, the values being calculated are often utilized in the calculation. For example, cr ude oil is used as a process fuel to recover crude oil. The total crude oil recovery en ergy consumption includes the direct crude oil consumption and the energy associa ted with crude recovery (which is the value being calculated).

• Btu/mmBtu is the energy input necessary in Btu to p roduce or transport one million Btu of a finished (or intermediate) product. This description is used consistently in CA-GREET for all energy calculations. There are 1,0 55 MJ in one mmBtu of energy, so in order to convert one million Btu into MJ, div ide the million Btu by 1,055. Scenario 1

NG Extraction

NG Processing

NG Reliquefaction NG Pipelined to C alifornia LNG Vehicle C ombustionNG Regasification LNG Tanker Ship Transport NG Liquefaction NG Processing

LNG T&D to California LNG Tanker Ship Transport NG Liquefaction NG Processing NG Extraction NG Extraction Scenario 2 Scenario 3

LNG T&D

LNG Vehicle Combust ion NG Transport to California

NG Liquefaction in California

LNG T&D

LNG Vehicle CombustionPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

4 • gCO 2 e/MJ provides the total greenhouse gas emissions on a CO 2 equivalent basis per unit of energy (MJ) for a given fuel. Methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) are converted to a CO 2 equivalent basis using IPCC global warming potenti al values and included in the total.

• CA-GREET assumes that VOC and CO are converted to C O 2 in the atmosphere and includes these pollutants in the total CO 2 value using ratios of the appropriate molecular weights.

• Process Efficiency for any step in CA-GREET is defi ned as:

Efficiency = energy output / (energy output + energ y consumed)

Table A below provides a summary of the GHG emissio ns for all the three scenarios.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

5 Table A. Summary of GHG Emissions for the Three Sce narios Detailed Here Appendix A1 Scenario 1 Appendix A2

Scenario 2 Appendix A3

Scenario 3

North American NG, Liquefied in CA and used in CA Overseas LNG

shipped to Baja, regasified, pipelined to CA, re-liquefied to LNG for use in CA Overseas LNG,

shipped to Baja, then trucked to CA for use in CA

Pathway Components gCO 2 e/MJ

Well-to-Tank Natural Gas Recovery 3.49 3.43 3.43 Natural Gas Processing 3.74 4.00 4.00 NG Transport to LNG Plant 0.97 0.45 0.45 Overseas Liquefaction n/a 7.40 7.40 Transport via Ocean Tanker to CA n/a 1.65 1.65

Transmission via pipeline n/a 0.76 n/a Re-gasification n/a 0.75 n/a Liquefaction at LNG Plants 15.79 15.79 n/a LNG Truck Transport, Distribution and Storage 0.64 0.64 2.07

Total Well-to-Tank GHG Emissions 24.63 34.87 19.00

Tank-to-Wheel
Carbon in Fuel 56.0 56.0 56.0
Vehicle CH 4 and N 2 O 2.50 2.50 2.50

Total Tank-to-Wheel GHG Emissions 58.50 58.50 58.50

Total Well-to-Wheel GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 83.13 93.37 77.50

Note: All numerical entries in Table above are in g CO 2 e/MJ. Rounding of values has not been performed in several Tables in this document. This is to all ow stakeholders executing runs with the CA-GREET model to compare actual output values from the mode l with values in this document.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

6 

## APPENDIX A1 (SCENARIO 1) LNG FROM NORTH AMERICAN NGPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

7 

## SECTION 1. NATURAL GAS RECOVERY

This Appendix details the energy use and GHG emissi ons for LNG derived from North American Natural Gas. Most of the details provided here for NG is from the NA NG to CNG pathway document published on the Low Carbon Fu el Standard website in February 2009 ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm ). The values for NG recovery, processing, and transport to CA are the same as det ailed in the NA NG to CNG pathway document published in February 2009 and ava ilable from the Low Carbon Fuel Standard website.

1.1 Energy Use for Natural Gas Recovery

Details of the energy use for North American Natura l Gas (NA NG) has been provided in the NA NG to CNG pathway document published in F ebruary 2009. Table 1.01 provides a summary of the results for energy consum ption from recovery of NA NG. Table 1.01. Total Energy Consumption for NA NG Reco very Fuel Type Energy Use
Residual Oil (Btu/mmBtu) 288 Diesel Fuel (Btu/mmBtu) 3,313 Gasoline (Btu/mmBtu) 311 Natural gas (Btu/mmBtu) 23,328 Electricity (Btu/mmBtu) 676 NG Leaks (Btu/mmBtu) 3,290 Total Energy Use for NA NG Recovery (Btu/mmBtu) 31,207

Note: See detailed calculations in the NA NG to CNG document published in February 2009 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm

1.2 GHG Emissions from NA Natural Gas Recovery

The pathway detailed here for NA NG uses the same i nformation for calculating GHG emissions from natural gas recovery. This is avail able from the NA NG pathway document indicated earlier and the results are summ arized in Table 1.02.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

8 Table 1.02. Total GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Re covery GHG Species

Fuel Type CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Total GHG Emissions Residual Oil (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 24 0.025 0.000 25

Diesel (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 260 0.292 0.005 269

Gasoline (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 19 0.051 0.001 20

Natural Gas (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,366 4.171 0.021 1,477

Electricity (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 56 0.069 0.001 58

NG Leakage (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 72.166 1,804

Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,726 4.608 0.027 1,849
Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 3.49PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

9 

## SECTION 2. NATURAL GAS PROCESSING

2.1 Energy use for Natural Gas Processing

The energy use is the same as published in the NA N G to CNG pathway document and Table 2.01 provides a summary of the energy use for NG processing. Table 2.01. Total Energy Consumption for NG Process ing

Fuel Type Energy Use

Diesel Fuel 323 Natural gas 27,889 Electricity 2,172
NG Leaks 1,479 Total Energy Consumption for NG Processing (Btu/mmBtu) 31,862

2.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Processing

The GHG emissions for NG processing are the same as detailed in the NA NG to CNG pathway document and Table 2.02 provides a summary of the GHG emissions from natural gas processing.

Table 2.02. Total GHG Emissions from NG Processing GHG Species

Fuel Type CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Total GHG Emissions
Diesel (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 25 0.028 0.000 26

Natural Gas (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,654 0.203 0.025 1,666

Electricity (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 181 0.222 0.002 187

NG Leakage (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,253 32.450 811

Non-combustion Processing Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,253

Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 3,112 32.903 0.027 3,943

Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 3.74PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

10 

## SECTION 3. NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION AND

DISTRIBUTION

3.1 Energy Use for NG Transport to LNG Plants in Ca lifornia

The third step in the LNG from NA NG pathway is tra nsport and distribution of the natural gas by pipeline from the processing plant t o the LNG refueling station. The energy use is the same as detailed in the NA NG to CNG pathway document. Table 3.01 provides a summary of the energy use for trans port of NG to LNG plants in California.

Table 3.01. Energy Use for NG Transport to LNG Plan ts in CA Total Energy Use = 9,348 Btu/mmBtu

3.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Transport to LNG Plants in California

GHG emissions from transporting NG to California is the same as detailed in the NA NG to CNG pathway document and is summarized in Table 3.02.

Table 3.02. Total GHG Emissions Associated with NG Transport to California LNG Plants GHG Species

CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O GHG Emissions GHG Emissions (g/mmBtu) 532 19.640 0.015

Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,028
Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.97PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

11 

## SECTION 4. NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TO LNG

4.1 LNG Liquefaction Energy Use

The next step is liquefaction of NG at LNG plants i n California. LNG is produced by the compression and cooling of natural gas and expansio n through several stages in an LNG plant. LNG is stored near atmospheric pressure at -162 ° C (-260 ° F).

LNG plants are generally supplied by pipeline gas w ith supply pressures ranging from 800 to 1000 psi. The feed gas for LNG is free of c omponents that freeze at cryogenic temperatures including CO 2 and high molecular weight hydrocarbons (C6 and gre ater). If LNG is produced from pipeline gas in the U.S., i t is assumed that the gas meets pipeline specifications.

Medium and small scale LNG facilities operate with typical efficiencies between 76 and 92% using a simple cascade cycle (Kunert 2008) 2 . For the analysis conducted here, only small scale systems (about 5,000 metric ton/ye ar) have been considered based on the systems likely to be used in California. For s uch systems, the liquefaction efficiencies are likely to be in the lower range of values indicated above. Therefore, for this analysis a liquefaction efficiency of 80% was assumed. Details of the assumptions for efficiency and fuel shares is provided in Table 4.01.

Table 4.01. Energy Efficiency for Natural Gas Lique faction. Liquefier Type Efficiency Fuel Shares

Small Scale CA 80%, excluding gas

processing, which is calculated separately 100% Natural Gas (CA-GREET Default)

North American NG is liquefied at a central facilit y and distributed by heavy duty LNG trucks. NG liquefaction in California is done by pr essure let down or electromagnetic liquefaction and is all electric. Liquefaction in California is assumed to be 100% natural gas- at central facilities, with an average efficie ncy of 80%. The main parameters for NA liquefaction modeling are:

• Region: California (average crude)

• Liquefaction efficiency (80%)

• Process fuel shares (100% NG, CA-GREET default)

• LNG storage leakage rate (0.05% day, IPCC value)

• LNG storage duration (5 days, CA-GREET default)

• Recovery rate of LNG boil-off (100%)

2 Kunert (2008). "Small is Beautiful - MiniLNG Conce pt: A Very Small LNG Production Plant for the Potential Use of Bio-Energy for Future Energy Suppl y". "The Potential of Bioenergy for Future Energy Supply" Conference, Leipzig, Germany.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

12 The liquefaction efficiency assumed here (80%) impl ies that 250,000 Btu of direct NG is required to liquefy 1 mmBtu of NG fuel. A natural gas turbine is used for liquefaction energy. Unlike NG extraction and processing, CA-GR EET models feed loss (Btu/mmBtu) based directly on the methane boil-off rather than using a fuel share for feed loss. However, zero percent feed loss is assu med because typically LNG facilities recapture boil off and re-liquefy the NG or use it as fuel. Table 4.02 provides the direct energy use for liquefaction.

Table 4.02. Direct Energy Use by Process Fuel for L iquefaction in California

Process Fuel Fuel

Share Formula Direct Energy Use Natural Gas (Btu/mmBtu) 100% 10 6 *(1/0.80 – 1) 250,000
Total Direct Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu) 250,000

Total energy for liquefaction is based on the direc t energy input plus the upstream energy for that fuel and is calculated in the same way as total energy for extraction and processing. Total energy use is shown in Table 4.0 3.

Table 4.03. Total Energy Use by Process Fuel for Li quefaction in California Fuel Direct Energy Upstream Energy Total Energy Use

Natural Gas (Btu/mmBtu) 10 6 *(1/80%)*100%

= 250,000 250,000*(31,144 +

31,321)/10 6 = 15,616 265,616

Total Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu) 265,616
Note: The values used in this table are from the NA NG to CNG pathway document.

4.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Liquefaction to LNG in California

The analysis in this document considers all liquefa ction energy to come from 100% NG with a liquefaction efficiency of 80%. Results for GHG emissions are similar to the energy calculations in the previous section. The p athway assumes zero methane emissions from leaks because typically all NG is ei ther recaptured and re-liquefied or used as a fuel in the process. Table 4.04 summariz es the results where CO and VOC emissions are converted to CO 2 eq.

Table 4.04. Total Emissions (Direct + Upstream) Emi ssions for Liquefaction in California GHG Species GHG Emissions (g/mmBtu) VOC 1.707 CO 8.590 CH 4 32.906 N 2 O 0.389 CO 2 15,717 GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 16,655 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 15.79PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

13 

## SECTION 5. LNG TRANSPORT, DISTRIBUTION, AND

STORAGE

5.1 LNG Truck Transport Summary

LNG is distributed by heavy duty truck (HDT) from t he bulk terminal in California to end user. The 80,000 lb GVW limit for tanker trucks car rying liquid fuels sets the theoretical upper weight limit for LNG (or any liquid fuel) car go. The cargo capacity for gasoline tanker trucks is 54,000 lbs, or 9,000 gallons of ga soline. Since the density of LNG is slightly more than half of the density of gasoline, the practical LNG cargo capacity is limited by volume rather than weight. The 9,000 ga llon capacity of a tanker truck translates into approximately 32,000 lbs (16 tons) LNG cargo capacity, or ~60% of the cargo weight limit. The Argonne GREET model default of 15 tons is close to this and used in this analysis.

Heavy duty tanker trucks transfer LNG by passing a small amount of LNG into a heat exchanger to increase the pressure in the tanker tr uck and force the liquid into the receiver tank. After transferring the vapors, the LNG tank on the truck is purged. Life cycle energy includes the direct and upstream diese l energy used to operate the truck and the fuel lost to boil off methane emissions (wh ich contributes to the loss factor). Emissions include direct and upstream emissions for diesel fuel in a HDT and the fugitive methane boil-off emissions.

5.2 LNG Truck Transport Energy Consumption Heavy duty trucks distribute the LNG from the lique faction facility to the LNG station. The energy results are calculated using a 50 mile t ransport distance from a LNG plant in California. The main transport inputs are shown be low. All inputs except for distances are CA-GREET default values.

• Region: CA (CA marginal electricity, CA average cr ude)

• Capacity (15 tons)

• Fuel economy (5 mi/gal)

• Fuel used (diesel)

• Fugitive emissions during storage (0.1% loss/day, CA-GREET default)

• Fugitive emission recovery rate (80% industry prac tice)

• Distance (50 mi, CA-GREET default)

The calculations for heavy duty truck energy consum ption are based on truck energy intensity in Btu/ton-mi. The energy intensity is c alculated as follows:

Btu/ton-mi = ((128,450 Btu/gal Diesel LHV)/(5 mi/ga l))/capacity in tons. The calculation for energy intensity is shown below and direct, ups tream and total energy results are presented in Table 5.01.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

14 Energy Intensity for Trip to Destination and Return Trip: (128,450 Btu/gal)/(5 mi/gal)/15 tons = 1,713 Btu/to n-mi Direct Diesel Energy

mile ton Btu miles ton lbs lb g gal Btu gal

g

− × × ×      

×

× × 2 713 ,1 50 / 000 ,2 / 454 / 968

, 80 /

724 ,1 10 6

=

4,016 Btu/mmBtu

Upstream Diesel Energy

= ×

− × × ×      

×

× × Btu Btu mile ton Btu miles ton lbs lb g gal Btu gal

g / 165 .0 2 713 ,1 50 / 000 ,2 / 454 / 968

, 80 /

724 ,1 10 6

663 Btu/mmBtu

(where 0.165 Btu/Btu is Btu energy of diesel consum ption per Btu of diesel transported - upstream)

Table 5.01. Direct, Upstream and Total Energy Use f or Heavy-Duty Diesel Truck Delivering LNG from LNG Plants to Refueling Station s in California
Energy Source Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu)
Direct Energy 4,016
Upstream Energy 663 Total Energy (Btu/mmBtu) 4,679

5.3 GHG Emissions from Truck Transport of LNG

Upstream and direct emissions from LNG transport by truck from the LNG plants are shown in Table 5.02 below. Table 5.03 below summar izes the total GHG emissions for LNG transport inclusive of methane losses.

Table 5.02. Upstream and Direct Emissions for Heavy -Duty Diesel Truck Transport of LNG from LNG Plants to Refueling Stations in Califo rnia
GHG Species (g/mmBtu)

Fuels CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O

Upstream Diesel Emissions 64 0.4524 0.001

Direct Diesel Emissions 313 0.006 0.008
Total Emissions (g/mmBtu) 378 0.453 0.009PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

15 Example of calculation CO 2 shown above: Upstream Diesel CO 2 :

mile ton Btu mmBtu g miles ton lbs lb g gal Btu gal

g

− × × × ×      

×

× 2 713 ,1 / 813

, 15 50 / 000 ,2 / 454 / 968

, 80 /

724 ,1

=
64 g/mmBtu

where 15,813 g/mmBtu is the upstream CO 2 emissions associated with diesel production (calculated in the “ Petroleum” sheet of the CA-GREET model)PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

16 Direct Diesel CO 2

mile ton Btu mmBtu g miles ton lbs lb g gal Btu gal

g

− × + × ×      

×

× 713 ,1 / ) 912

, 77 809

, 77( 50 / 000 ,2 / 454 / 968

, 80 /

724 ,1

= 313 g/mmBtu CO 2

Total: 378 g/mmBtu CO 2 where 77,809 g/mmBtu and 77,912 g/mmBtu are the em ission factors from the EF

sheet of CA-GREET.

Fugitive emissions from truck transport are modeled based on 0.1% boil-off/day and 80% recovery. These are CA-GREET default parameter s.

Table 5.03. Total GHG Emissions for LNG Transport i n CA GHG Species CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O GHG Emissions Fuel Diesel (g/mmBtu) 378 0.453 0.009 392 Methane Losses (g/mmBtu) 0.426 11 Total Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 378 0.879 0.009 403 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.38

5.4 GHG Emissions from Storage of LNG

Fugitive methane emissions occur during LNG storage . The net emissions are a function of the methane boil-off and recovery rates . There are 6 key inputs determining the fugitive methane emissions, shown below in Tabl e 5.04.

Table 5.04. LNG Storage Emissions

Description Bulk Terminal Distribution Daily Boil-Off Rate (%) 0.05% 0.1% Duration (Days) 5 0.1 Boil-Off Recovery Rate (%) 80% 80% Net Methane Emissions (g/mmBtu) 10.7 0.4 Net Methane Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 267 10.6 Net Methane Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.25 0.01 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.26

Calculation of the net fugitive emissions based on the inputs is shown below:

Net Boil-Off Emissions: [(0.05% bulk terminal boil-off/day)*(5 days)/(1-(0. 05% bulk terminal boil-off/day)*(5 days))*(1-80% recovery) + [(0.1% distribution boil- off/day)*(0.1 days)/(1-(0.1% distribution boil-off/day)*(5 days))*(1-80% recover y)]*10 6 /(80,968 Btu/gal)*(1,724 g/gal)

= 11.1 g CH 4 /mmBtu

Converting to gCO 2 e/MJ: (11.1 g CH 4 /mmBtu)*25/(1055 MJ/mmBtu) = 0.26 g CO 2 e/MJPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

17 

## SECTION 6. GHG EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES

6.1 LNG Composition

LNG composition affects the inputs to its life cycl e analysis in two ways. First, the composition determines the product fuel’s carbon co ntent which can range from 74.7 to 76.1% corresponding to a range of 55.4 to 56.8 g/MJ (as CO 2 ) when calculated from the individual LNG composition. The range in carbon co ntent for LNG is relatively small as it contains low levels of nitrogen and no CO 2 . A carbon content of 75.7% was selected as the CA-GREET input based on the average of a ran ge of LNG compositions. The CA-GREET inputs for heating value and density were also changed to reflect LNG compositional data that was consistent with data an d the carbon content in g/MJ.

6.2 GHG Emissions from Vehicles

Vehicle GHG emissions consist of:

• Tailpipe CO 2 (combusted CH 4 )

• Tailpipe N 2 O (combustion product)

• Tailpipe CH 4 (product of incomplete combustion, evaporative los ses)

In this analysis, heavy duty trucks use LNG. The C O 2 is calculated from the carbon content of the fuel, minus the tailpipe methane emi ssions. CO 2 emissions therefore depend on the fuel heating value (LHV), density (g/ gal) and carbon content (% C by weight).

(1,724 g-LNG/gal)*(0.757 g-C/g-NG)*(1/80,968 Btu/ga l)*(44 g-CO 2 /12 g-C)*(Btu/1.055 kJ)*(1,000 kJ/MJ) = 56.0 g CO 2 /MJ

In the above equations 1,724 is the density of LNG (CA-GREET default), 0.757 is the Carbon in LNG (Ca-GREET default) and the LHV of LNG is 80,968 Btu/gal.

The same vehicle CH 4 and N 2 O emissions are assumed for LNG vehicles as CNG vehicles which is 2.5 g CO 2 e/MJ, (see NA NG to CNG fuel pathway document on th e LCFS website at http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm for complete details).

Table 6.01. LNG Tailpipe Emissions.
Tailpipe Emissions CO 2 CH 4 and N 2 O Total

Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 56.0 2.5 58.5PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

18 

## APPENDIX A2 (SCENARIO 2) LNG FROM REMOTE SOURCES, SHIPPED TO BAJA, RE-GASIFIED, PIPELINED TO CA, LIQUEFIED IN CAPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

19 This Appendix details the energy use and GHG emissi ons for LNG produced from remote NG (overseas modeled here as being South Eas t Asia), shipped to Baja, Mexico, re-gasified, pipelined to CA, liquefied in CA and transported for use in CA. Some of the details provided here for NG are from t he NA NG to CNG pathway document published on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard website in February 2009 ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/lcfs.htm ). Other details are from Appendix A1 of this document. This scenario differs from scenario 1 pr esented in Appendix A1 in the following areas: a) NG recovery and processing uses South East Asia Electricity mix compared to U. S. Average mix for scenario 1. b) Liquefaction efficiency is 90% for this compared to 80% for scenario 1. c) LNG is transported via ocean tanker which does n ot exist in scenario 1. d) LNG is re-gasified for this scenario but not for scenario 1. e) NG is pipelined from Baja, Mexico, to CA for thi s scenario but NG is transported from average U. S. sources of NG for scenario 1. f) There is liquefaction in California for scenario 2 which is the same for scenario 1.

Table A2.1 below provides a summary of the GHG emis sions calculated for scenario 2. Details of the calculations are presen ted in the following sections.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

20 Table A2.1. Summary of GHG Emissions for Scenario 2 Pathway Component GHG Emissions NG Recovery (gCO 2 e/MJ) 3.43 NG Processing (gCO 2 e/MJ) 4.00 NG Transp. to LNG Plant (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.45
NG Liquefaction (Overseas) (gCO 2 e/MJ) 7.40
LNG Transport via Ocean Tanker (gCO 2 e/MJ) 1.65
NG Pipeline Transmission (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.76
Re-gasification (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.75 NG Liquefaction (CA) (gCO 2 e/MJ) 15.79
LNG/Diesel Truck Transport and Storage (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.64

WTT GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 34.87
Carbon in Fuel (gCO 2 e/MJ) 56.00 Tailpipe Emissions (non-CO 2 ,gCO 2 e/MJ) 2.50

TTW GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 58.50

Total WTW GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 93.37

The basic assumptions for the calculations above ar e summarized in Table A2.2.

Table A2.2. Basis Assumptions for Remote Sourced LN G for Scenario 2 Description Value/Assumption NG Transport from field to Remote LNG plants (mi) 50

Liquefaction Efficiency 90% for remote liquefaction and 80% for California liquefaction LNG Transport from remote source via Ocean Tanker (mi) 8,769

LNG Truck Transport (mi) 50 Electricity Mix for remote

source S. E. Asia Average
Electricity Mix for CA
process CA MarginalPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

21 

## SECTION 1. REMOTE NATURAL GAS RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND TRANSPORT TO LNG PLANT

1.1 Remote NG Recovery and Processing

For NG recovery and processing, the same assumption s and inputs are assumed for NG produced at a remote site as that for NA NG. He nce the results are similar to those provided in Sections 1 and 2 in Appendix A1. The s mall differences are related to the average electricity mix used for South East Asia (R esidual oil 19.3%, NG 33.5%, Coal 36.3%, Biomass 2.2% and other renewables 8.6%) bein g different compared to the U.S. Average electricity mix used in the calculatio ns for the recovery and processing of NA NG. The values for GHG emissions for recovery a nd processing are shown in Table A in the summary section and the total emissi ons are 3.43 (recovery) and 4.0 (processing) for a total of 7.43 gCO 2 e/MJ for the recovery and processing of remote natural gas.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

22 

## SECTION 2. REMOTE NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TO LNG 2.1 Liquefaction Energy Use

Liquefaction at the remote site is modeled as being produced in a large scale (over 4 million tonne/year) liquefier. A detailed descript ion of the processing requirements for LNG is provided in a report by the International Ga s Union (Rahal 2006 3 ). The conversion efficiency for LNG ranges from 89% to 93 % for large scale facilities. The inputs for the analysis used here are based on the Argonne GREET inputs with data from a 1999 article (Kikkawa 1999 4 ).

The energy for liquefaction is generated with turbi nes at the LNG plant. 2% of the energy input is purchased power to operate facility controls based on the CA-GREET default with the balance from NG. The inputs and b reakdown of the energy used are shown in Table 2.01. The calculation methodology i s similar to the one presented for liquefaction in California in Appendix A1.

Table 2.01. Total Energy Inputs for Overseas LNG Li quefaction Systems

Parameter Energy or Other Value Liquefaction Inputs Natural Gas (Btu/mmBtu) 108,889 Electric Power (Btu/mmBtu) 2,222 Total (Btu/mmBtu) 111,111 Liquefaction Efficiency 90% Fuel Shares Natural Gas 98% Electric Power 2%

3 Rahal, C. (2006). "Liquefied Natural Gas". Report o f Programme Committee D, Triennium 2003-2006, 23rd World Gas Conference, International Gas Union.
4 Kikkawa, Y. and I Aoki, 199, “Gas to Liquid of 21 st Century,” AIChE meeting, Houston, TX, March 1999PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

23 2.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Liquefaction to LNG

For this document, liquefaction energy comes from t he resource mix described in the previous section. The GHG emissions correspond to the natural gas and electricity use. The pathway assumes zero methane emissions from lea ks because typically all NG is either recaptured and re-liquefied or used as a fue l in the process. Table 2.02 summarizes the results where CO and VOC emissions a re converted to CO 2 eq. The calculations are similar to the ones presented for liquefaction in California in Appendix A1.

Table 2.02. Total Emissions (Direct + Upstream) Emi ssions for Remote Liquefaction of NG

GHG Species GHG Emissions (g/mmBtu) VOC 0.796 CO 4.135 CH 4 15.003 N 2 O 0.175 CO 2 7,381 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 7,808

Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 7.4PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

24 

## SECTION 3. LNG TRANSPORT TO CALIFORNIA, DISTRIBUTION, RE-GASIFICATION, TRANSPORT, AND

STORAGE WITHIN CALIFORNIA

3.1 LNG Transport via Ocean Tanker

LNG is transported in large cryogenic tanks aboard LNG tanker ships. Standard LNG carriers range in size from 120,000 to 155 000 m 3 . A few small purpose built ships and large LNG carriers 210,000 m 3 have also been built (Rahal 2006 5 ). Most LNG tankers operate on a combination of LNG and bunker fuel. S ome very large LNG tankers operate on only bunker fuel and use an on-board re- liquefaction system to capture boil off. The analysis here is based on 53% NG ship fue l share, including the LNG from boil off (0.15%/day) and 47% residual oil as fuel.

LNG Tanker Ship Energy Consumption

The parameters for modeling LNG tanker ship transpo rt energy are shown below. All inputs except for distances are CA-GREET default va lues.

• Region: Southeast Asia (U.S. Average Crude, South East Asia electricity)

• Capacity (65,000 tons)

• Average speed (19 mph)

• Energy consumption for transport and return trip ( 4,620 and 4,691 Btu/hphr)

• Fuel shares (47% residual oil, 53% natural gas)

• Load factor for transport and return trip (80% and 70%)

• Distance (8,769 miles)

The calculations for energy tanker ship energy cons umption are based on the ship energy intensity (in Btu/ton-mile). The calculatio ns for energy intensity are below:

Trip to Destination: (4,620 Btu/hphr)*(15,635 hp required)*(80% load fac tor)/(65,000 tons)(19 mph average speed) = 48 Btu/ton-mi

Return Trip: (4,691 Btu/hphr)*(15,635 hp required)*(70% load fac tor)/(65,000 tons)(19 mph average speed) = 43 Btu/ton-mi

The ships boil off approximately 0.15%/day of the L NG, which is used as ship fuel. 100% recovery is assumed in GREET, since there are no fugitive emissions and the boil-off determines the loss factor.

5 Rahal, C. (2006). "Liquefied Natural Gas". Report of Programme Committee D, Triennium 2003-2006, 23rd World Gas Conference, International Gas Union.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

25 The ship distance shown in Table 3.01 was estimated using an online shipping calculator tool (Eship 2008 6 ).

Table 3.01. Transport Distance for LNG Shipment via Ocean Tanker from Remote Source to Baja Pathway Scenario LNG

Source Destination Port Distance (mi)

2 South East Asia Baja (Mexico) 8,769

Ocean tanker transport energy is calculated the sam e way as energy for all transport modes. The calculations for ocean tanker transport from South East Asia to Baja, Mexico are shown below in Table 3.02.

Table 3.02. Direct, Upstream and Total Energy Use f or Transport via Ocean Tanker to Baja Fuel (Btu/mmBtu) Direct Energy

Use Upstream

Energy Use Total Energy Use Residual Oil 8,769 1,008 9,777 NG 9,871 3,490 13,360 Total Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu) 23,137

Direct Residual Oil Energy (South East Asia to Baja ) Direct energy = 10 6 Btu/(80,968 Btu/gal)*(1,724 g/gal)/(454 g/lb)/(2,0 00 lbs/ton)*(8,769 mi)*(48 Btu/ton-mi + 43 Btu/ton-mi)*(47%) = 8,769 Btu/mmBtu

Upstream Residual Oil Energy 10 6 Btu/(80,968 Btu/gal)*(1,724 g/gal)/(454 g/lb)/(2,0 00 lbs/ton)*(8,769 mi)*(48 Btu/tonmi + 43 Btu/ton-mi)*(0.115 Btu/Btu)(47%) = 1,008 Btu/mmBtu

The direct and upstream energy for the natural gas component is calculated in the same manner as detailed for residual oil. The total ene rgy for both residual oil and NG is shown in Table 3.02 and is 23,137 Btu/mmBtu

. GHG Emissions from Transport via Ocean Tanker

Ocean tanker transport emissions is calculated the same way as emissions for all transport modes. The total GHG emissions, includin g ship combustion and upstream emissions for scenario 2 is shown in Tables 3.03 an d Table 3.04.

6 Eship. (2008). "Sea Distances - Voyage Calculator. " Retrieved September 1, 2008, from http://www.eships.net/dist.htm

.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

26 Table 3.03. Total Emissions (Direct + Upstream) for Ocean Tanker Transport of LNG from Remote Source to Baja GHG Species CO 2 VOC CO CH 4 N 2 O Fuel (g/mmBtu)

Residual Oil 825 0.777 1.810 0.876 0.019 Natural Gas 799 0.905 1.192 2.723 0.025 Total GHG Emissions (g/mmBtu) 1,625 1.682 3.002 3.599 0.043

Table 3.04. Total GHG Emissions for Ocean Tanker Tr ansport of LNG from Remote Source to Baja

GHG Species

CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Emissions Fuel (g/mmBtu)

Residual Oil 830 0.876 0.019 Natural gas 804 2.723 0.025 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 1,737 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 1.65

3.2 Re-gasification

Scenario 2 requires that LNG gas be re-gasified to natural gas for pipeline transmission. This includes heating the gas to ambient temperatur e and raising the pressure to pipeline pressures of 800 psi. Several methods are used for the re-gasification or vaporization process. LNG is pumped into a heat ex changer and the source of heat could be sea water, combustion of the vaporized gas , or ambient air. Some systems also aim to make use of the latent heat energy from LNG to produce useful work. The energy required for re-gasification ranges from 0.5 % to 3% (Heede 2006 7 , Rahal 2006 8 ). An average re-gasification energy requirement o f 1.0% was assumed for this document.

Energy Consumption from LNG Re-gasification

The equipment used for re-gasification is similar t o a NG boiler or steam generator. Direct energy for LNG re-gasification is based on t he share of the feedstock stream (LNG) used for re-gasification:

(1.0%)*(1,000,000 Btu LNG) = 10,000 Btu NG/mmBtu LN G throughput

7 Heede, R. (2006). "LNG Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Cabrillo Deepwater Port: Natural Gas from Australia to California", Climate Mitigation Services.
8 Rahal, C. (2006). "Liquefied Natural Gas". Report o f Programme Committee D, Triennium 2003-2006, 23rd World Gas Conference, International Gas Union.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

27 The upstream energy component consists of the total energy required to generate the LNG delivered by tanker ship (just prior to re-gasi fication). This includes energy for extraction, transport to LNG facility, processing, liquefaction, storage and LNG tanker ship transport. The total energy (direct + upstrea m) for Scenario 2 that includes regasification is shown below in Table 3.05.

Table 3.05. Total Energy (Direct + Upstream) for LN G Re-gasification

Description Energy (Btu/mmBtu)

Direct Energy 10,000 Upstream Energy 2,959 Total Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu) 12,959

GHG Emissions from LNG Re-gasification

The NG process fuel input (10,000 Btu/mmBtu) and th e NG fuel properties (lower heating value, % carbon in fuel and density) determ ine the direct CO 2 emissions from re-gasification and equipment-specific emission fac tors (in g/mmBtu fuel burned) dictate the other emission species. Since CA-GREET does no t model LNG re-gasification and emission factor data for re-gasifiers is not readil y available, this analysis uses CAGREET default emission factors for large (> 100 mmB tu/hr) NG utility boilers to calculate direct emissions (shown below in Table 3. 06).

Table 3.06. Emission Factors for Large (> 100 mmBtu /hr) NG Boiler Species Emissions CO 2 (g/mmBtu fuel burned) 58,198 VOC (g/mmBtu fuel burned) 1.557 CO (g/mmBtu fuel burned) 16.419 CH 4 (g/mmBtu fuel burned) 1.100 N 2 O (g/mmBtu fuel burned) 0.315

The total greenhouse gas calculations are based on the direct energy input (10,000 Btu/mmBtu) with emission factors shown in Table 3.0 6. Table 3.07 below presents the total (direct + upstream) emissions for re-gasifica tion for Scenario 2 considered here. Since 1.0% of the LNG is consumed for re-gasificati on, this step contributes a 1.0% feed loss to the process steps upstream of re-gasif ication. This is equivalent to applying a 1.01 loss factor to the upstream process energy a nd emission results.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

28 Table 3.07. Total GHG Emissions from LNG Re-gasific ation GHG Species CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O Emissions

Re-gasification Emissions (g/mmBtu) 777 0.511 0.007
Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 792 Total GHG Emissions (gCO2e/MJ) 0.75

3.3 Pipeline Transport to CA under Scenario 2

NG Pipeline Transmission Energy

The main input parameters for modeling pipeline ene rgy are the energy intensity and equipment shares for turbines, engines for pressuri zing the gas, pipeline distance and % loss factor. Using details for transporting NG a s shown in Appendix A1, for this scenario using 250 mile transport from Baja, Mexico to California, the direct and upstream . NG energy calculations for pipeline tra nsport to California (scenario 2) are shown as an example:

Direct Energy (NG) (Scenario 2)

%) 94 069 .0( 405 250 / 000 ,2 / 454 / 930 /

4. 20 10

3 3 6
× ×

− × ×      

×

× ×
Btu Btu
mile ton Btu miles ton lbs lb g ft Btu ft

g

= 190 Btu/mmBtu

Upstream Energy (NG and electricity) (Scenario 2)

%) 6 997 .1 % 94 069 .0( 405 250 / 000 ,2 / 454 / 930 /

4. 20 10

3 3 6
× + × ×

− × ×      

×

× × mile ton Btu miles ton lbs lb g ft Btu ft

g

= 542 Btu/mmBtu

Where:

0.069 Btu/Btu: energy consumption from transportat ion of NG (CA-GREET calculated in cell D170, “ T&D”

tab) 1.997 Btu/Btu: energy consumption from transmission of electricity (CA-GREET calculated in cell R170, “ T&D” tab)

Table 3.08 provides a summary of the total energy u se for pipeline transport of NG from Baja, Mexico to CA for Scenario 2.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

29 Table 3.08. Total Energy Use for Transport of Re-ga sified NG from Baja, Mexico Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu) Direct Energy Use 190 Upstream Energy Use 542 Total Energy Use (Btu/mmBtu) 732

GHG Emissions from NG Pipeline Transmission

Greenhouse gas emissions resulting from NG pipeline transmission are presented here. Direct and upstream emissions are calculated using the same equations shown in the NA NG to CNG document. The total process fuel emis sions are shown below in Table 3.09.

Table 3.09. Total GHG Emissions for Pipeline Transm ission from Baja, Mexico GHG Species CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O GHG Emissions Fuels (g/mmBtu) (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) Natural Gas 289 1.315 0.010 325 Electricity 31 0.064 0.001 33 Methane Losses 17.548 439 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/mmBtu) 796 Total GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.76

3.4 Liquefaction in California

For Scenario 2 where liquefaction occurs in Califor nia, the process has been described earlier in Appendix A1. The emissions for this ste p in the pathway is 15.79 gCO 2 e/MJ

. 3.5 LNG Transport and Storage in California

This section is the same as presented in Appendix A 1. The GHG emissions from LNG transport and storage in CA are 0.38 + 0.26 = 0.64 g CO 2 e/MJ

.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

30 

## SECTION 4. GHG EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES

4.1 Tank To Wheel (TTW) GHG Emissions

GHG emissions are the same as detailed in Appendix A1 and the total GHG emissions

are 58.5 gCO 2 e/MJ

.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

31 

## APPENDIX A3 (SCENARIO 3) LNG FROM REMOTE SOURCES, SHIPPED TO BAJA,

TRUCKED TO CAPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

32 This Appendix details the energy use and GHG emissi ons for LNG produced from remote NG (overseas modeled here as being South Eas t Asia), shipped to Baja, Mexico, trucked to CA and use in CA. Some of the d etails provided here for NG are from the NA NG to CNG pathway document published on the Low Carbon Fuel Standard website (http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/ lcfs.htm) in February 2009. Other details are from Appendices A1 and A2 of this docum ent. This scenario differs from scenarios 1 and 2 presented in Appendices A1 and A2 in the following areas: a) NG recovery and processing uses South East Asia Electricity mix which is the same for scenario 2 while for scenario 1, the mix i s U. S. Average mix. b) Liquefaction efficiency is 90% for this and scen ario 2 compared to 80% for scenario 1. c) LNG is transported via ocean tanker for this sce nario and scenario 2 which does not exist in scenario 1. d) LNG is not re-gasified for this scenario and sce nario 1 but is for scenario 2. e) NG is not pipelined from Baja, Mexico, to Califo rnia for this scenario but is for scenario 2 and for scenario 1, NG is transported fr om average U. S. sources to California. f) There is liquefaction in California for scenario 2 which is the same for scenario 1 but does not happen for scenario 3. g) LNG is transported from Baja, Mexico, for this s cenario but does not happen for scenarios 1 and 2.

Table A3.1 below provides a summary of GHG emission s calculated for scenario 3. Details of the calculations are presented in the fo llowing sections.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

33 Table A3.1. Summary of GHG Emissions for Scenario 3

Pathway Component GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) NG Recovery (gCO 2 e/MJ) 3.43 NG Processing (gCO 2 e/MJ) 4.00 NG Transp. to LNG Plant (gCO 2 e/MJ) 0.45
NG Liquefaction (Overseas) (gCO 2 e/MJ) 7.40
LNG Transport via Ocean Tanker (gCO 2 e/MJ) 1.65
LNG/Diesel Truck Transport and Storage (gCO 2 e/MJ) 2.07

WTT GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 19.00
Carbon in Fuel (gCO 2 e/MJ) 56.00 Tailpipe Emissions (non-CO 2 , gCO 2 e/MJ) 2.50
TTW (gCO 2 e/MJ) 58.50 Total WTW GHG Emissions (gCO 2 e/MJ) 77.50PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

34 The basic assumptions for the calculations above ar e summarized in Table A3.2.

Table A3.2. Basis Assumptions for Remote Sourced LN G Description Value/Assumption NG Transport from field to Remote LNG plants (mi) 50

Liquefaction Efficiency 90% for remote liquefaction

LNG Transport from remote source via Ocean Tanker (mi) 8,769

LNG Truck Transport (mi) 250 Electricity Mix for remote

source South East Asia Average Electricity Mix for CA
process CA MarginalPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

35 

## SECTION 1. REMOTE NATURAL GAS RECOVERY, PROCESSING AND TRANSPORT TO LNG PLANT

1.1 Remote NG Recovery and Processing

As detailed in scenario 2 and shown in Appendix A2, the results are 3.43 g/CO 2 e/MJ for NG recovery and 4.0 g/CO 2 e/MJ for NG processing.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

36 

## SECTION 2. REMOTE NATURAL GAS LIQUEFACTION TO LNG

2.1 Liquefaction Energy Use

As presented in scenario 2 and shown in Appendix A2 , the energy use for overseas liquefaction is 111,111 Btu/mmBtu.

2.2 GHG Emissions from Natural Gas Liquefaction to LNG

As presented in scenario 2 and shown in Appendix A2 , the GHG emissions from overseas liquefaction are 7.4 g/CO 2 e/MJ.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

37 

## SECTION 3. LNG TRANSPORT TO BAJA, THEN TRUCKED

AND STORAGE WITHIN CALIFORNIA

3.1 LNG Transport via Ocean Tanker

As presented in scenario 2 and shown in Appendix A2 , transport of LNG from remote sources (modeled here as being from South East Asia ) via ocean tanker requires 23,137 Btu/mmBtu of energy and 1.65 gCO 2 e/MJ of GHG emissions are generated during the transport process.

3.2 LNG Transport and Storage to California from Ba ja, Mexico to California

The calculations are the same as presented in secti on 5 of Appendix A1, but with a transport distance of 250 miles from Baja, Mexico t o California. The total energy use is 4,679 Btu/mmBtu (Table 5.01 of Appendix A1). The GHG em issions are calculated to be 1.81 gCO 2 e/MJ of truck transport which has to be combined with 0.26 gCO 2 e/MJ of emissions from LNG storage (see Appendix A2 for LNG storage emission details) for a total of 2.07 gCO 2 e/MJ GHG emissions and is shown in Table A in the s ummary section.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

38 

## SECTION 4. GHG EMISSIONS FROM VEHICLES

4.1 Tank To Wheel (TTW) GHG Emissions

GHG emissions are the same as detailed in section 6 of Appendix A1 and the total emissions are 58.5 gCO 2 e/MJ.PRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

39 

# APPENDIX B

LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS (LNG) FROM NORTH AMERICAN AN D REMOTE NATURAL GAS SOURCES PATHWAY INPUT VALUESPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

40 Parameters Units Values Note

GHG Equivalent

CO 2 1 CA-GREET Default
CH 4 25 CA-GREET Default
N 2 O 298 CA-GREET Default
VOC 3.1 CA-GREET Default
CO 1.6 CA-GREET Default

Natural Gas Recovery Process Efficiency 97.2% CA-GREET Default
Natural Gas Leak Rate 0.35% CA-GREET Default
Fuel Shares
Residual Oil 0.9% CA-GREET Default
Conventional Diesel 9.8% CA-GREET Default
Conventional Gasoline 0.9% CA-GREET Default

Natural Gas 76.2% CA-GREET Default Electricity 0.9% CA-GREET Default Feed Loss (Leak) 11.4% CA-GREET Default Equipment Shares
Small Boiler - Residual Oil 100% CA-GREET Default

CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 85,049 CA-GREET Default
Commercial Boiler - Diesel 25% CA-GREET Default

CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 78,167 CA-GREET Default Stationary Reciprocating Eng. - Diesel 50% CA-GREET Default

CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 77,349 CA-GREET Default
Turbine - Diesel 25% CA-GREET Default
CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 78,179 CA-GREET Default Stationary Reciprocating Eng. -

Gasoline
CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 50,480 CA-GREET Default
Small Boiler - NG 50% CA-GREET Default

CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 58,215 CA-GREET Default Stationary Reciprocating Eng. - NG 50% CA-GREET Default

CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 56,388 CA-GREET Default Natural Gas Processing Process Efficiency 97.2% CA-GREET Default
Natural Gas Leak Rate 0.15% CA-GREET Default

Fuel Shares
Conventional Diesel 0.9% CA-GREET Default
Natural Gas 91.1% CA-GREET Default Electricity 2.8% CA-GREET Default Feed Loss (Leak) 5.1% CA-GREET Default Equipment Shares
Commercial Boiler - Diesel 33% CA-GREET Default
CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 78,167 CA-GREET Default Stationary Reciprocating Eng. - Diesel 33% CA-GR EET Default

CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 77,349 CA-GREET Default
Turbine - Diesel 34% CA-GREET Default
CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 78,179 CA-GREET Default Large Boiler - NG 50% CA-GREET Default
CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 58,215 CA-GREET DefaultPRELIMINARY DRAFT DISTRIBUTED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

41 Parameters Units Values Note

Large Turbine - NG 50% CA-GREET Default
CO 2 Emission Factor gCO 2 /mmBtu 58,196 CA-GREET Default
Feed Loss 1.001 CA-GREET Default NG Liquefaction NG Liquefaction Efficiency in CA 80% CA-GREET Default

Process Fuels Shares

Natural Gas 98% CA-GREET Default Electricity 2% CA-GREET Default Remote NG Processing Efficiency 90% Excluding gas processing

Process Fuels Shares Assumed the same as NA NG Natural Gas Pipeline Transmission Natural Gas Use 94% CA-GREET Default Electricity Use 6% CA-GREET Default Distance travel Miles 1,400 For NA NG to California LNG Truck Transport
Tanker Truck Size ton 15 fueled by diesel or LNG
Distance travel Miles 50 from LNG plants in CA to CA filling statio ns 250 from LNG plants in Baja to CA filling stations Fuel Economy Mi/gal 5 Fugitive Emissions During Storage %/day 0.1%/day CA-GREET default Fugitive Emissions Recovery Rate 80% Industry Practice
Vehicle Emissions

Carbon in NG grams C/gram NG 72.4 CA-GREET default

Fuels Properties LHV (Btu/gal) Density (g/gal)

Crude 129,670 3,205 CA-GREET Default
Residual Oil 140,353 3,752 CA-GREET Default
Conventional Diesel 128,450 3,167 CA-GREET Default
Conventional Gasoline 116,090 2,819 CA-GREET Default

CaRFG 111,289 2,828 CA-GREET Default
CARBOB 113,300 2,767 CA-GREET Default
Natural Gas 83,686 2,651 NG Liquids
Natural Gas NG gaseous: 930 Btu/scf